Learning Object Names at Different Hierarchical Levels Using Cross-Situational Statistics.

Objects in the world usually have names at different hierarchical levels (e.g., beagle, dog, animal). This research investigates adults' ability to use cross-situational statistics to simultaneously learn object labels at individual and category levels. The results revealed that adults were able to use co-occurrence information to learn hierarchical labels in contexts where the labels for individual objects and labels for categories were presented in completely separated blocks, in interleaved blocks, or mixed in the same trial. Temporal presentation schedules significantly affected the learning of individual object labels, but not the learning of category labels. Learners' subsequent generalization of category labels indicated sensitivity to the structure of statistical input.

[1]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Competitive Processes in Cross-Situational Word Learning , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Word learning as Bayesian inference. , 2007, Psychological review.

[3]  Dare A. Baldwin,et al.  Early referential understanding: Infants' ability to recognize referential acts for what they are. , 1993 .

[4]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics , 2008, Cognition.

[5]  R. Bjork,et al.  Learning Concepts and Categories , 2008, Psychological science.

[6]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[7]  Larissa K. Samuelson,et al.  Non-Bayesian Noun Generalization in 3- to 5-Year-Old Children: Probing the Role of Prior Knowledge in the Suspicious Coincidence Effect , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Haley A. Vlach,et al.  Temporal dynamics of categorization: forgetting as the basis of abstraction and generalization , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[9]  Linda B Smith,et al.  Competition between multiple words for a referent in cross-situational word learning. , 2016, Journal of memory and language.

[10]  Jae H. Paik,et al.  Korean- and English-speaking children use cross-situational information to learn novel predicate terms* , 2008, Journal of Child Language.

[11]  P. Walker,et al.  The role of sound symbolism in language learning. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  Chih-Yi Wu,et al.  Tracking Multiple Statistics: Simultaneous Learning of Object Names and Categories in English and Mandarin Speakers , 2017, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  Laura L. Namy,et al.  Detailed Behavioral Analysis as a Window Into Cross-Situational Word Learning , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Sean H. K. Kang,et al.  Learning Painting Styles: Spacing is Advantageous when it Promotes Discriminative Contrast , 2012 .

[15]  R. Aslin,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article UNSUPERVISED STATISTICAL LEARNING OF HIGHER-ORDER SPATIAL STRUCTURES FROM VISUAL SCENES , 2022 .

[16]  Christopher N. Wahlheim,et al.  Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: an investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging , 2011, Memory & cognition.

[17]  Jenny R. Saffran,et al.  All Together Now: Concurrent Learning of Multiple Structures in an Artificial Language , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Naming in young children: a dumb attentional mechanism? , 1996, Cognition.

[19]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different tasks benefit from different schedules of study , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[20]  Chen Yu,et al.  Grounding statistical learning in context: The effects of learning and retrieval contexts on cross-situational word learning , 2017, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  Leslie M. Bailey,et al.  Young children and adults use lexical principles to learn New Nouns , 1992 .

[22]  C. Fisher,et al.  2.5-Year-olds use cross-situational consistency to learn verbs under referential uncertainty , 2012, Cognition.

[23]  Bob McMurray,et al.  Observational Word Learning: Beyond Propose-But-Verify and Associative Bean Counting. , 2016, Journal of memory and language.

[24]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Rapid Word Learning Under Uncertainty via Cross-Situational Statistics , 2007, Psychological science.

[25]  Emmanuel Chemla,et al.  What Homophones Say about Words , 2016, PloS one.

[26]  Padraic Monaghan,et al.  Gavagai Is as Gavagai Does: Learning Nouns and Verbs From Cross-Situational Statistics , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  E. Markman,et al.  Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  Chen Yu,et al.  Simultaneous Cross-situational Learning of Category and Object Names , 2010 .

[29]  Daniel J. Weiss,et al.  Context influences conscious appraisal of cross situational statistical learning , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[30]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  An associative model of adaptive inference for learning word–referent mappings , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[31]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[32]  Linda B Smith,et al.  Learning Words in Space and Time , 2011, Psychological science.

[33]  Scott P. Johnson,et al.  Memory constraints on infants’ cross-situational statistical learning , 2013, Cognition.

[34]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  Speaker perspective and reference in young children , 1997 .

[35]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Two-Year-Olds Use Pragmatic Cues to Differentiate Reference to Objects and Actions , 1995 .

[36]  Raven I. McDavid,et al.  Ain't I and Aren't I , 1941 .

[37]  Emmanuel Chemla,et al.  Word Learning: Homophony and the Distribution of Learning Exemplars , 2016 .

[38]  N. Akhtar,et al.  Early lexical acquisition: the role of cross-situational learning , 1999 .